Pelosi, Schumer To Trump: "Let's Debate Border Funds in Private"

[fredtoast]

(12-12-2018, 07:35 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I don't care if the wall costs $25-200+ Billion to build.
In the long run it will be worth it as the number of Illegals crossing over dwindles to zero and the illegals that are here are caught and sent back or die off etc. Once complete those numbers will sky dive expotentionally as the number of anchor babies drastically dips.

*sighs I really should just save the data permanently cause I have to repeat it everytime the wall is brought up.

FAIR 2017 report estimates that there is a cost of $135 Billion annually for illegal immigrants. 135B-16B (taxes paid in) = 113B Totals that US Taxpayers foot the bill for.

https://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers

There is a lot of BS in those numbers , but right off the bat you can reduce them by 2/3rds because 2/3rds of illegal immigrants enter the country legally and no wall is going to stop them.

Next, this FAIR study did not just include the 12.5 million illegal immigrants.  It also added 4.5 million us citizens children born in the United States.

Next a lot of the numbers are just pulled out of thin air.  Why the hell would the cost of Byrne Grants be blamed on illegal immigrants?  Most of the so called "costs" are just random numbers with no basis in illegal immigrant costs.

And finally, what happened to Mexico paying for the wall?  Are all of you Trump supporters going to let him get away with making you fall for that line of bull shit?

[BmorePat87]

I watched the full video this morning. Bad move on his part trying to do this on camera.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-12-2018, 06:36 PM)jj22 Wrote: Actually I'm right. You guys just don't like Immigration Reform because yall only care about Mexicans. Our only border isn't Mexican/Texas. Many European (especially) illegal immigrants come from Canada border, or by boat to the east coast. See yall don't even know. That's the problem with the immigration debate. People think only illegal immigrants are Mexican/South Americans and only pick on them and that's just unfortunate. Also when has Immigration reform passed and been shot down from the courts?

I'm for no illegal immigrants (not just coming from Mexico). So can we solve that? Or must we keep dealing with a favorite political punching bag of the right (Mexicans). I prefer not to pick with a certain group of people while letting everyone else slide on by. We should do what's right and fair.

Jezz, Ok then, southern wall will free up the resources needed to guard the Candian border as well.
I'm very well aware they come from the North as well.  Ideally, I would like a charge for anyone entering the country that is a NON USC to pay a fee for a nice server to track immigrants crossing at both borders and flying out. This would eliminate quite a few people that are actually not overstaying their visas and could allow us to focus on those that are.

OMG 164 People Apprehended in 2017 sneaking accross the Vermont-NY-New Hampshire Canada Border. not even a drop in the bucket compared to how many come from the South DAILY. But nice attempt trying to change the focus on the gaping hole in the south.

For the Boats, people are always going to come that way, we have to much beach front to watch it all.

I don't know why you keep thinking MY focus is only on the South, you come here Illegally, GTFO. Gotta start somewhere, so fix the South, then we can start addressing the others ways.

[*bfine32*]

(12-12-2018, 06:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They have ladders in Mexico.

BTW which European countries have walls that are 100% effective at keeping out illegal immigrants?  I have not heard about these countries.

This argument is so lame. 

Folks have lock picks, but I still lock my doors. Is that a bad idea? 

I agree and have stated that Trump handled this meeting poorly; however, building a wall was a campaign promise and he feels the need to fight to keep his promise. If we don't like it we can make a change in 2020. But let's not pretend that this is the only Promise a POTUS has made that he fights to defend. I'd imagine Obama was pretty adamant about the ACA

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-12-2018, 06:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They have ladders in Mexico.

BTW which European countries have walls that are 100% effective at keeping out illegal immigrants?  I have not heard about these countries.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/05/24/donald-trump-europe-border-walls-migrants/532572002/

(12-12-2018, 06:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it does nit.  Putting up a wall sucks funds away from other areas and it will not stop illegal immigration because people will just use ladders and ropes to get over it.

Always the excuse. Do you really think that we are just going to build a wall and leave it unattended??
There will be cameras and people nearby that can react to these situations. There is also ways to build a wall that deters ladders.

I like how you have no one has offered an alternate means so far of preventing illegals from entering the US.

From this point on, if you are just going to sit here and cherry pick with out suppling a single valid alternative, I'm just going to ignore you for failure to contribute constuctively to the conversation.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-12-2018, 07:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is a lot of BS in those numbers , but right off the bat you can reduce them by 2/3rds because 2/3rds of illegal immigrants enter the country legally and no wall is going to stop them.

Next, this FAIR study did not just include the 12.5 million illegal immigrants.  It also added 4.5 million us citizens children born in the United States.

Next a lot of the numbers are just pulled out of thin air.  Why the hell would the cost of Byrne Grants be blamed on illegal immigrants?  Most of the so called "costs" are just random numbers with no basis in illegal immigrant costs.

And finally, what happened to Mexico paying for the wall?  Are all of you Trump supporters going to let him get away with making you fall for that line of bull shit?

I already said I can't vouch for all the numbers. But I can get to $60-70B in just the cost of anchor babies we put thru school here in the US. Doesn't include government benefits they get.

As to the Bolded, yes they count, they would not have been born here if their parents didn't come here illegally in the first place.

Byrne grants? It's because of the rise of the population. We have to supply them police, fire, amulances and medical. They don't pay taxes, but we can't deny them those things.

Numbers aren't pulled out of thin air as you want them to be. Many are probably logically added.

Anyways, done with you until you offer an alternative.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-12-2018, 08:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I watched the full video this morning. Bad move on his part trying to do this on camera.

(12-12-2018, 08:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This argument is so lame. 

Folks have lock picks, but I still lock my doors. Is that a bad idea? 

I agree and have stated that Trump handled this meeting poorly; however, building a wall was a campaign promise and he feels the need to fight to keep his promise. If we don't like it we can make a change in 2020. But let's not pretend that this is the only Promise a POTUS has made that he fights to defend. I'd imagine Obama was pretty adamant about the ACA

Yes he handled it poorly. He could easily have had spreadsheets of data backing him up to slam them with and embarrased them.

And yea, Ropes and Ladders is lame. Can't wait for the Dig Tunnels part to kick in. You and I both know it's coming.

[*bfine32*]

(12-12-2018, 08:58 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yes he handled it poorly. He could easily have had spreadsheets of data backing him up to slam them with and embarrased them.

And yea, Ropes and Ladders is lame. Can't wait for the Dig Tunnels part to kick in. You and I both know it's coming.

No doubt. The person that will replace Carlos Slim as the richest person in Mexico will be the one that opens a chain of Home Depots along the border.

Folks are 2funny. 

[Belsnickel]

(12-12-2018, 07:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is a lot of BS in those numbers , but right off the bat you can reduce them by 2/3rds because 2/3rds of illegal immigrants enter the country legally and no wall is going to stop them.

Next, this FAIR study did not just include the 12.5 million illegal immigrants.  It also added 4.5 million us citizens children born in the United States.

Next a lot of the numbers are just pulled out of thin air.  Why the hell would the cost of Byrne Grants be blamed on illegal immigrants?  Most of the so called "costs" are just random numbers with no basis in illegal immigrant costs.

And finally, what happened to Mexico paying for the wall?  Are all of you Trump supporters going to let him get away with making you fall for that line of bull shit?

To understand the FAIR information, you have to understand that it is a racist organization with strong ties to white supremacists. Really, any use of their information in a debate should be a huge red flag.

[*bfine32*]

(12-12-2018, 10:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: To understand the FAIR information, you have to understand that it is a racist organization with strong ties to white supremacists. Really, any use of their information in a debate should be a huge red flag.

Are they like the Right's SPLC?

[GMDino]

Just to prove that Trump is not just against "mexicans"...


https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/12/donald-trump-deport-vietnam-war-refugees/577993/?utm_medium=social&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_term=2018-12-12T19%3A14%3A32&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&fbclid=IwAR04wkq65Vybio8vwx2CXthbzhYjSqdR-RzQYNYu1AvPob6n9jZlBuSTvSE&fbclid=IwAR3KKgp7EthO-ExXX5WJr9OuKARfGzPzJZJwNisNAPTSqizUsyUfZnYhS7M&fbclid=IwAR1w23JYc1V04Ete5jLNp00Y7BTupzjMNnXv6gNy9NTyX1Y7B1z-HBA11DI&fbclid=IwAR1x9AK4kT6c4XWEZtIsV5r5op8xfupzUAF9xBTnJrETqM39ZGPbPJZdlEs

Quote:Trump Moves to Deport Vietnam War Refugees

The White House again wants to expel certain groups of protected immigrants, a reversal after backing away from the policy months ago.

Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen speak at a meeting in February.JONATHAN ERNST / REUTERS




Updated at 4:22 p.m.
The Trump administration is resuming its efforts to deport certain protected Vietnamese immigrants who have lived in the United States for decades—many of them having fled the country during the Vietnam War.

This is the latest move in the president’s long record of prioritizing harsh immigration and asylum restrictions, and one that’s sure to raise eyebrows—the White House had hesitantly backed off the plan in August before reversing course. In essence, the administration has now decided that Vietnamese immigrants who arrived in the country before the establishment of diplomatic ties between the United States and Vietnam are subject to standard immigration law—meaning they are all eligible for deportation.

The new stance mirrors White House efforts to clamp down on immigration writ large, a frequent complaint of the president’s on the campaign trail and one he links to a litany of ills in the United States.

Read: Another blow against refugees

The administration last year began pursuing the deportation of many long-term immigrants from Vietnam, Cambodia, and other countries who the administration alleges are “violent criminal aliens.” But Washington and Hanoi have a unique 2008 agreement that specifically bars the deportation of Vietnamese people who arrived in the United States before July 12, 1995—the date the two former foes reestablished diplomatic relations following the Vietnam War.



The White House unilaterally reinterpreted the agreement in the spring of 2017 to exempt people convicted of crimes from its protections, allowing the administration to send back a small number of pre-1995 Vietnamese immigrants, a policy it retreated from this past August. Last week, however, a spokesperson for the U.S. embassy in Hanoi said the American government was again reversing course.

Washington now believes that the 2008 agreement fails to protect pre-1995 Vietnamese immigrants from deportation, the spokesperson, who asked not to be identified by name because of embassy procedures, told The Atlantic.

“The United States and Vietnam signed a bilateral agreement on removals in 2008 that establishes procedures for deporting Vietnamese citizens who arrived in the United States after July 12, 1995, and are subject to final orders of removal,” the spokesperson said. “While the procedures associated with this specific agreement do not apply to Vietnamese citizens who arrived in the United States before July 12, 1995, it does not explicitly preclude the removal of pre-1995 cases.”

The about-turn came as a State Department spokesperson confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security had met with representatives of the Vietnamese embassy in Washington, D.C., but declined to provide details of when the talks took place or what was discussed.

Katie Waldman, a spokeswoman for DHS said: “We have 5,000 convicted criminal aliens from Vietnam with final orders of removal—these are non-citizens who during previous administrations were arrested, convicted, and ultimately ordered removed by a federal immigration judge. It’s a priority of this administration to remove criminal aliens to their home country.”

Spokespeople for the Vietnamese embassy did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

But the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, a Washington, D.C., advocacy group, said in a statement that the purpose of the meeting was to change the 2008 agreement. That deal had initially been set to last for five years, and was to be automatically extended every three years unless either party opted out. Under those rules, it was set to renew next month. Since 1998, final removal orders have been issued for more than 9,000 Vietnamese nationals.

When it first decided to reinterpret the 2008 deal, Donald Trump’s administration argued that only pre-1995 arrivals with criminal convictions were exempt from the agreement’s protection and eligible for deportation. Vietnam initially conceded and accepted some of those immigrants before stiffening its resistance; about a dozen Vietnamese immigrants ended up being deported from the United States. The August decision to change course, reported to a California court in October, appeared to put such moves at least temporarily on ice, but the latest shift leaves the fate of a larger number of Vietnamese immigrants in doubt. Now all pre-1995 arrivals are exempt from the 2008 agreement’s protection.

Read: The U.S. used to criticize countries that didn’t allow their citizens to leave.

Many pre-1995 arrivals, all of whom were previously protected under the 2008 agreement by both the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, were refugees from the Vietnam War. Some are the children of those who once allied with American and South Vietnamese forces, an attribute that renders them undesirable to the current regime in Hanoi, which imputes anti-regime beliefs to the children of those who opposed North Vietnam. This anti-Communist constituency includes minorities such as the children of the American-allied Montagnards, who are persecuted in Vietnamfor both their ethnicity and Christian religion.

The Trump administration’s move reflects an entirely new reading of the agreement, according to Ted Osius, who served as the United States ambassador to Vietnam from December 2014 through October 2018. Osius said that while he was in office, the 2008 agreement was accepted by all involved parties as banning the deportation of all pre-1995 Vietnamese immigrants.

“We understood that the agreement barred the deportation of pre-1995 Vietnamese. Both governments—and the Vietnamese-American community—interpreted it that way,” Osius told The Atlantic in an email. The State Department, he added, had explained this to both the White House and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

News of the Trump administration’s renewed hard line quickly made the rounds on Vietnamese American social media, with advocacy groups warning of potentially increased deportations.

“Forty-three years ago, a lot of the Southeast Asian communities and Vietnamese communities fled their countries and their homeland due to the war, which the U.S. was involved in, fleeing for their safety and the safety of their families,” said Kevin Lam, the organizing director of the Asian American Resource Workshop, an advocacy group. “The U.S. would do well to remember that.”

[BmorePat87]

(12-12-2018, 08:58 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yes he handled it poorly. He could easily have had spreadsheets of data backing him up to slam them with and embarrased them.

Spreadsheets would have allowed him to speak beyond his talking points, but from what Tillerson and others have said, he's not too concerned about the details beyond those talking points. This video seemed to confirm that.

I doubt his base will care much about his limitations in negotiating in situations where he can't just stiff the other party and outlast them in legal fees, though, so it may not have been that bad, but he has to reconcile with the moderate Republicans his "pride" in shutting down the government over a wall and not accept a bipartisan deal.

[BrownAssClown]

(12-12-2018, 08:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This argument is so lame. 

Folks have lock picks, but I still lock my doors. Is that a bad idea? 

I agree and have stated that Trump handled this meeting poorly; however, building a wall was a campaign promise and he feels the need to fight to keep his promise. If we don't like it we can make a change in 2020. But let's not pretend that this is the only Promise a POTUS has made that he fights to defend. I'd imagine Obama was pretty adamant about the ACA

If he really wanted to keep his promise he would make the Mexicans pay for that wall he wants. He knows they're not paying for it, not now, not ever, why would they? What would they be getting out of it? The president has to go begging Congress for the funding, in a word, sad. If he really feels the need to keep one of his promises, he could release his tax returns from the last 10 or 20 years, now I know he doesn't have to, but a promise is a promise. I think there's a better chance the Mexicans pay for "the wall".

[Dill]

(12-12-2018, 07:35 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I don't care if the wall costs $25-200+ Billion to build.
In the long run it will be worth it as the number of Illegals crossing over dwindles to zero and the illegals that are here are caught and sent back or die off etc. Once complete those numbers will sky dive expotentionally as the number of anchor babies drastically dips.

*sighs I really should just save the data permanently cause I have to repeat it everytime the wall is brought up.

FAIR 2017 report estimates that there is a cost of $135 Billion annually for illegal immigrants. 135B-16B (taxes paid in) = 113B Totals that US Taxpayers foot the bill for.

https://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers

Saving the data is a good idea. Also save links to the rather rigorous critiques to which the FAIR Report has been subjected.
Fred has raised some of these points above. Especially suspicious are the numbers regarding school children of illegals, many of whom are in fact citizens, and many of whom, like "real" American students, will contribute to the economy as they enter the labor force, repaying society for the benefit of public education.

Here is one: FAIR’s “Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration” Study Is Fatally Flawed
https://www.cato.org/blog/fairs-fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-study-fatally-flawed

For comparative/fact-checking purposes, there is the National Academies of Engineering, Sciences, and Medicine 2017 report:
The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration https://www.nap.edu/read/23550/chapter/1
It's a VERY long read, and not a direct refutation of FAIR's report, but you can use it as a reference or touchstone for some of the issues raised by FAIR.

This issue reminds me a bit of climate change, with the social science experts claiming even illegal immigration is a net gain for the economy and the anti-immigrant groups working up figures to the contrary--but very easy to grasp.

FINAL POINT: I was happy to see you plugging for free higher education as a possible benefit of ending illegal immigration. One normally doesn't see that valuation of higher ed from folks who want foreign matter purged from the body politic.  But good on you for articulating that goal.

However, do consider this--the politicians you vote in to build a wall would roll back Medicare and Social Security if they could. Why in the world would they channel your projected savings into a BIG GOVERNMENT HANDOUT for all Americans?  Your savings would reduce the Federal budget and so argue (in the minds of Republican leaders) for corresponding tax cuts--not for a new public good.

[Dill]

(12-12-2018, 11:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: Just to prove that Trump is not just against "mexicans"...

Many pre-1995 arrivals, all of whom were previously protected under the 2008 agreement by both the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, were refugees from the Vietnam War. Some are the children of those who once allied with American and South Vietnamese forces, an attribute that renders them undesirable to the current regime in Hanoi, which imputes anti-regime beliefs to the children of those who opposed North Vietnam. This anti-Communist constituency includes minorities such as the children of the American-allied Montagnards, who are persecuted in Vietnamfor both their ethnicity and Christian religion.
.....
“Forty-three years ago, a lot of the Southeast Asian communities and Vietnamese communities fled their countries and their homeland due to the war, which the U.S. was involved in, fleeing for their safety and the safety of their families,” said Kevin Lam, the organizing director of the Asian American Resource Workshop, an advocacy group. “The U.S. would do well to remember that.”

Yeah, but what have they done for us LATELY?   
 
The Montagnards fought and died alongside U.S. special forces for years, backing a losing horse to the end.

The admission of those people in the 70s and 80s was the U.S. thank you for their service and a minimal attempt, at least, to honor THEIR sacrifice of home, freedom and lives in OUR national interest. I don't often get exercised in this forum, but I have to say this was just blood boiling to read.

How can any U.S. military member who still puts honor and duty above profit and political advantage stand this?

I don't have any special love for ARVN/RVN immigrants; but their children are Americans now. Just so NASTY to think of sending any of these people back as part of some "clamp down" Trump show of signing orders and the Nielsen tool looking on in fear and approval.

[*bfine32*]

(12-12-2018, 11:54 PM)BrownAssClown Wrote: If he really wanted to keep his promise he would make the Mexicans pay for that wall he wants. He knows they're not paying for it, not now, not ever, why would they? What would they be getting out of it? The president has to go begging Congress for the funding, in a word, sad. If he really feels the need to keep one of his promises, he could release his tax returns from the last 10 or 20 years, now I know he doesn't have to, but a promise is a promise. I think there's a better chance the Mexicans pay for "the wall".

He can use all kinds of examples to prove Mexico "paid for it". I said the same during the election. 

For instance we earn a profit on the New NAFTA and there you have it. 

[Dill]

(12-13-2018, 12:57 AM)bfine32 Wrote: He can use all kinds of examples to prove Mexico "paid for it". I said the same during the election. 

For instance we earn a profit on the New NAFTA and there you have it. 

Not really a "profit" if considered a circuitous payment for the wall though, right?
The cost is still ours.

[*bfine32*]

(12-13-2018, 01:04 AM)Dill Wrote: Not really a "profit" if considered a circuitous payment for the wall though, right?
The cost is still ours.

If Mexico loses out on the deal then they've "paid for it". 

If they have to provide social services for those turned away from our borders the they've "paid for it"

I get it's a semantics argument; but one Trump can easily point to. 

[Dill]

(12-13-2018, 01:13 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If Mexico loses out on the deal then they've "paid for it". 

If they have to provide social services for those turned away from our borders the they've "paid for it"

That one might be valid. But it depends on what that cost is for Mexico.  If we pay 75 billion for the wall and a billion to maintain it every year there after, and they pay only 4 billion a year to keep the blocked illegals, it would be a while for the costs to even out.

Then again, there might be unexpected losses to our economy too if the wall "works."  E.g. more expensive vegetables.

[BrownAssClown]

(12-13-2018, 12:57 AM)bfine32 Wrote: He can use all kinds of examples to prove Mexico "paid for it". I said the same during the election. 

For instance we earn a profit on the New NAFTA and there you have it. 

We? As in the government? The government is NOT going to make one thin dime off of NAFTA or whatever it's now called. American companies and corporations stand to profit from the deal and the president seems to like to give big business tax breaks not to raise their taxes. Any monies generated by this new deal will most likely go into the pockets of CEO's not a border wall. If the wall is ever built, I have my doubts that it ever will, the American taxpayers will pay for it, the blue collar taxpayer that is.